TIMOTHY BANGARA Vs. SHARADA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and arise out of the two petitions HRC.18/69 & 11/70 filed in the Court of the II Addl Munsiff, Udupi relating to separate but contiguous premises said to belong to the same landlord. Since the learned Dist Judge while dealing with the two appeals has given a common judgment, it is considered convenient to decide both the revision petitions by a single judgment,

(2.) Sharada Bai, the landlord, filed the petition HRC. 18/69 against Timothy Bangava in respect of a hon-residential premises and the grounds elicited for eviction were classified under Cls (c) (d) (f) (h) and (i) of S.21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 besides the ground under 1 (o) of Sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was stated that the tenant erected on the premises a permanent structure without landlord's consent, that he was convicted of using the premises for immoral or illegal purpose, that he had unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the premises, that the premises were required for carrying out repairs and that the premises were also required for a reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord. The tenant, inter alia, denied all these grounds set up by the landlord in support.of his case for eviction. It was further pleaded that the notice to quit was "invalid and even otherwise insufficient and bad in law'. The learned trial Munsiff disallowed the grounds put in Cls(f), (h). and (i) hut upheld the grounds specified in Cls(c) and (d) namely, permanent structure having been made by the tenant without the consent and his conviction for using the premises for immoral or illegal purpose. It was also held that the notice to quit did not afford 15 clear days to the tenant to vacate and as such the said notice was invalid under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. At the same time, it was held that the tenant was a statutory tenant and as such the notice to quit was not required to determine the tenancy. As regards the grounds under Cl (o) of S.108 of the Transfer of Property Act, the finding of the trial Munsiff was that the said ground was not made out. Therefore, the petition of the lendlord was allowed.

(3.) The second petition HRC.11/70 was filed by the same landlord against Mrs. Bernard, the daughter-in-law of the respondent in HRC.18 of 1969. The landlord took up the grounds under Cl(a) and (h) of S.21(l). The learned trial Munsiff, however, considered that both these grounds were not made out and hence he dismissed the petition for eviction.